Domiano Ratcliff v. State of Mississippi
2014-CP-01212-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- In April 2004 Ratcliff and three others entered the Spencers' home to rob them; two victims were shot and one (Steve) was shot five times.
- Ratcliff pled blind guilty on November 5, 2004 to two counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault and received consecutive sentences totaling fifty years.
- Ratcliff filed a first PCR motion in 2006 that was summarily dismissed and did not appeal that dismissal.
- On May 8, 2013 Ratcliff filed a second PCR motion arguing his sentence was disproportionate to two codefendants’ sentences and seeking resentencing.
- The Forrest County Circuit Court summarily dismissed the second PCR motion as time-barred and a successive writ; Ratcliff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCR motion | Ratcliff claimed relief despite filing in 2013 | State: motion filed outside three-year statutory window and is untimely | Court: Motion time-barred under § 99-39-5(2) |
| Successive-writ procedural bar | Ratcliff sought relief via second PCR motion | State: motion is a successive writ barred by § 99-39-23(6) | Court: Procedurally barred as a successive writ |
| Constitutional challenge (equal protection/due process) based on sentencing disparity with codefendants | Ratcliff argued his sentence was longer than codefendants (Turner, Jessie) and violated equal protection/due process | State: sentencing disparities among codefendants do not by themselves show constitutional violations; circuit court acted within discretion | Court: Complaint fails to overcome procedural bars; even on merits, no constitutional violation because no right to equal sentences for accomplices |
| Lawfulness of sentence within statutory limits | Ratcliff implied sentence was excessive compared to others | State: sentences fall within statutory maximums and were justified by roles and conduct (shooting vs. waiting in car) | Court: Sentences lawful and within statutory limits; sentencing judge reasonably considered differing roles |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review for PCR denials)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (procedural-bar exception for fundamental constitutional rights)
- Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015) (mere constitutional assertion insufficient to overcome procedural bars)
- Young v. State, 919 So. 2d 1047 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (no requirement that accomplices receive proportionate sentences)
- Booker v. State, 840 So. 2d 801 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (affirming sentencing disparities where judge considered charges, records, roles, and recommendations)
- King v. State, 857 So. 2d 702 (Miss. 2003) (sentencing within statutory limits is reviewed for abuse of discretion)